pve_list_node_storage_content

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List storage content' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what the output format is (e.g., list of items with metadata), or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description 'List storage content' is extremely concise with only three words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for not providing enough context in its minimal structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'storage content' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Node name', 'Storage ID', 'Filter by content type', 'Filter by VMID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'content type' values might be or how filtering works. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List storage content' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_list_node_storage_content'. While it indicates a listing operation, it lacks specificity about what 'storage content' means (e.g., files, volumes, backups) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_list_storage' or 'pve_list_node_storage'. The verb 'List' is clear, but the resource 'storage content' is vague without context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required node and storage parameters), use cases, or how it differs from similar tools like 'pve_list_storage' (which might list storage resources rather than content). There's no explicit or implied context for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.